Although there is clearly a liberal bias in the media, and an adjunct adoration of the Obama child following close behind - indeed, each is fuel to the other's flame - although this is clear, I tend to avoid commenting on it because such seems a bit petty - a lot of the vitriol on the right regarding it comes off sounding like small minded excuse mongering - I tend to want to believe the bias is beside the point and not worthy of scorn, even though one could easily imagine scenarios where that decidedly would not be true.
But then an example so brazen jumps out at you and starts you thinking maybe you've entirely underestimated the insidious nature of it - case in point: Anita Dunn resigns as White House communications director, the same Anita Dunn who in a summer speech extolled the virtues of Mao's teachings and then tried to pass this praise off as a bad joke gone awry - I read about her resignation on CNN's website - they chose not to mention in any way whatsoever why she's gone, instead simply quoting her as saying 'it was never my intention to stay long'. That's a pretty blatant tailoring of the news to suit a political agenda - or is it simply a business agenda spilling over into a political one?
CNN has fallen to the bottom of the news ratings pile and consequently have increasingly slanted leftward in an attempt to gain market share - it's embarrassing, unseemly, possibly insidious - but is it dangerous? And at what point can one distinguish a business imperative from a politically biased one? [is there a consoling irony in a private media company selling its soul for market share by suppressing truth re socialist Obama's Mao loving operative in order to gain favour with Dear Leader partisans in hopes they'll grease wheels of capitalism by choosing Coke over Pepsi? Ah, there's a twisted something in there - don't know about salubrious effects of irony]
